This question came up on the german message boards and i forget how it was ruled:

Can i trigger a limit once per game ability again if it get´s cancelled? Some cards like Patchface, Den of the wolf and Tyrion´s chain have this limitation. However it´s confusing for me that there was a faq entry for patchface:

(v5.4) Patchface P24
The "limit once per game" restriction on
Patchface's ability applies to all copies of
Patchface you are running in your deck.

So i guess in general i´m asking is it possible to trigger a card ability like den of the wolf twice as long as i use more than one copy of the card. Or how can the patchface errata be interpreted? Is it a general advice for all cards with the limitation "once per game" or is this somehow bound to the card type or taht special card?

I thought till now that "limit once per game" means that you can trigger the ability only once per game and that i t doesn´t matter if i can trigger the ability successful - if it get´s cancelled i can´t trigger it again.

mood: very confused

The clarification on Patchface came from the fact that he was the first non-event card with a "Limit 1 per game" effect that was triggered from in play. There was some confusion because of that. Here's why:

Take a look at the card Belated Messenger from the ITE set. It has the effect:

"Response: After an opponent reveals a plot card with higher initiative than yours, Belated Messenger claims 1 power. (Limit 1 per phase.)"

So, if I am playing a Melee game and I reveal the plot with the lowest initiative, I can only trigger Belated Messenger once, instead of once per opponent, because of the limit. But what if I had 2 or 3 Belated Messengers in play? Well, since the Limit on Messenger #1 only applies to himself, I can still trigger Messenger #2 one time in the same phase, right?

So traditionally, limits on card abilities triggered while in play have applied just to that card, not to all cards of the same name.

Now apply that to Patchface. His ability is once per game, right? But since it's triggered from in play, like Belated Messenger, shouldn't it only apply to that copy of the card? So if Patchface left play (like, say, by being discarded or being returned to my hand), why can't I trigger the "limit 1 per game" on a "second" copy I play from my hand? That would be the same thing as the multiple copies of Belated Messenger, right?

So, the errata on Patchface is to make sure that triggering the "limit 1 per game" on any card named Patchface applies to all cards you control named Patchface.

So yes, if you cancel a "limit 1 per game," it has still been initiated, which means that it cannot be initiated again, even though the effect never resolved. Ultimately, limits are play restrictions, which are checked at the time of initiation. That means the limit is placed on how many times you can trigger the event, not on how many times you can resolve it.

It turns out that the errata on Pachface is to make him work the way you think he should work.

Ah, thank you, the good explanation sets things a little more straight. I thought it had something to do with the type of the card. But you also mentioned the FAQ entry was made because Patchface was the first non-event card with the limitation, do you think that this errata can also be transfered on den of the wolf which is also a non-event card? I can´t remember if we heard any official word on that.

It´s also especially interesting for the LCG enviroment, because the LCG FAQ naturally hasn´t got the Patchface errata. So it can´t be treated as a test case for LCG.

Old Ben said:

I think it's safe to extend the precedent from Patchface to Den of the Wolf. I mean, we haven't had any trouble extending the errata on King's Hall from the I&F Edition to all other reducers, preventing the ones that say "lower the cost of the next card" from lowering the gold or influence cost of events all these years, right?

Old Ben said:

Well, if you look at Patchface's entry in the Legacy FAQ as a clarification rather than a change in card text, you don't necessarily need the test case since the same game conditions exist, even if the ruling isn't technically on the books for LCG. Granted, an official clarification on Den of the Wolf to clear up the inconsistency for how limits are applied to effects triggered from play would be good, but I don't think there's too much trouble treating it as an "it works because it works" until then.

I agree. Thank you for the answers Ktom. The problem for me is - i´m not used to test cases and prefer a general faq entry with an example, rather than a test case just like king´s hall and patchface. It seems to me, that it´s somehow harder for new players or players with a leaking memory (like me ) to find the details.

@ Old Ben

"The problem for me is - i´m not used to test cases and prefer a general faq entry with an example, rather than a test case just like king´s hall and patchface."

This might be because you're more used to the German/Roman law than to the Anglosaxon case law.

Rubinon said:

You are absolutely right. Honestly, i thought about writing it in my reply. Laws in the German/Roman law system are always abstract and general and a test case could be at best an indicator that something should be handled that or this way. Since the AGOT rules seem to have the Anglosaxon case law as an archetype i´ll usually stumble over such things.

Well, keep in mind that in this case, you were going to naturally do exactly what you should have done until you came across the "test case" in the FAQ.

The abstract, general rule to the original question ("can I trigger a '1 per game' effect again if the first was canceled") is the earlier point that about limits being play restrictions and thus mattering to initiation. The whole test case actually addresses a different (though related) question.